Eva Karitskaya, known publicly as Karina Melnichuk, is described as the former wife of the performer known as Pasha Technique. She denies ever being involved in an escort Telegram channel. Karitskaya states that he never sold himself for money. She notes that the man she knew did not hide his sincerity, and she does not see anything embarrassing in this. She says she intends to file a defamation claim against anyone who spreads misinformation about this matter. Karitskaya asserts that the rumors surrounding her past relationship and the public figure she once shared a life with have been distorted. She recalls a relationship built on mutual respect and discretion, not a scene of public scandal. The denial extends beyond labels, addressing how online chatter has framed her history. She explains that she did not participate in any service or channel connected to escort work on Telegram, and she questions the motive behind posts that claim otherwise. In her view, the spread of unverified information harms real people and families, and she is prepared to pursue legal redress against individuals who continue to circulate false narratives. Friends and supporters who know the couple are asked to rely on verified statements rather than sensational headlines.
Karitskaya noted that the accusations imply mercenary behavior that contradicts the image she knew. She emphasizes that the person in question never compromised personal values for cash; sincerity, she says, is simply part of the character she saw. She adds that she sees no shame in a candid past, only in the misrepresentation of it. The issue quickly drew a response from the online sphere. A blogger involved in reporting on the matter announced plans to file a defamation lawsuit against anyone spreading false information. They argue that mischaracterized claims can wreck reputations and inflame people who are not responsible for the events described. The blogger urged readers to wait for verified facts and to scrutinize sources before sharing rumors. Meanwhile, other commenters suggested that the episode highlights broader problems with how online communities handle sensational stories about public figures and their families. The situation prompted calls for more responsible journalism and more careful discussion among fans who want clarity without drama.
Sources described a private archive of photos that appeared online, accompanied by statements that were presented as genuine. The blogger reported that the attackers attempted to breach the Telegram account associated with the person at the center of the dispute. Those familiar with the case say the breach attempts aimed to access private files and further fuel the controversy. In response, the subject’s team asked for time to address the situation, to clarify what happened, and to prevent the spread of completed misrepresentations. The public debate intensified as commentators weighed the ethics of publishing private material and the responsibilities of platforms in shielding personal data. Advocates for privacy argued that once personal items are shared, even with the best intentions, harm can follow regardless of nostalgia. Critics warned against sensationalizing a complicated history, urging people to concentrate on verified facts rather than fragments of dubious sources. The incident underscored how quickly unverified images can circulate and become anchors for broader narratives that may not reflect reality. It also prompted repeated assurances that investigations will continue behind the scenes, with a call for patience from those following the case.
Speaking through representatives and via statements circulated by his team, the subject expressed a mix of shock and resignation about the circulation of private material. He emphasized that the photos were from an era long past and that their public resurfacing does not define the present. He recalled that other high-profile figures also faced similar episodes of gossip and scandal and chose to remain calm rather than engage in a media frenzy. He urged observers to treat the matter with restraint and to avoid quick judgments that distort memory. On the health front, reports from late March indicated that the artist was taken to a clinic in Southeast Asia after an incident described as acute poisoning, with severe respiratory complications requiring artificial ventilation. By early April, updates noted a pulmonary infection and a need for intensive care measures; sources close to the situation said the artist, aged 40, faced a serious health challenge. While officials and representatives offered their best wishes, the public remained focused on the ongoing dispute, wondering how personal history and public life intersect in the digital age.
Earlier, a relative of the artist known as Guf offered commentary on the broader context. The sister claimed that public figures like Sobchak were drawn into the drama following the interview with Pasha Technique’s ex-wife. She suggested that these exchanges triggered a new wave of scrutiny and heated discussions about the responsibility of media personalities in amplifying private disputes. Her remarks were met with mixed reactions online, with supporters arguing that the public has a right to ask questions and detractors warning against turning personal history into a spectacle. Critics pointed to the risk of misinterpretation when dramatic statements are spread without checking facts. The sister’s account, while not independently verified, added another layer to a story already crowded with conflicting narratives. The episode highlighted the potential for fringe voices to sway the conversation and pushed fans and critics to seek clearer timelines, corroborated details, and credible sources before forming a conclusion. The evolving narrative continues to unfold as official updates are promised and individuals navigate the delicate balance between public curiosity and private life.